Stephen Wahl

The complainants filed a complaint under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act regarding a work assignment dispute at Ontario Hydro's Bruce Generating Station.

The respondents argued that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the applicable collective agreements required jurisdictional disputes to be referred to the Impartial Jurisdictional Disputes Board (IJDB).

The complainants contended that the IJDB was no longer operational.

The Board found that while the IJDB was not currently issuing job decisions, its procedures were still operative and the parties were bound by them.

Consequently, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction under section 91(14) of the Act and terminated the proceedings.

The employer referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board alleging that the union engaged in an unlawful strike in the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector.

The union argued that the employer was estopped from claiming damages because it had delayed filing the grievance for eight months while acquiescing to the union's conduct.

The Board found that while estoppel might not strictly apply, the employer's unreasonable delay in asserting its rights under the collective agreement warranted limiting the retroactive period for which damages could be claimed.

The Board restricted the employer's damage claim to the period subsequent to March 10, 1980, and directed that the matter be re-listed for hearing on the merits for that period.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the working agreement relied upon by the union was signed under economic duress caused by an unlawful strike and picketing.

The Board found that the Building Trades Council had engaged in unlawful conduct by threatening and causing an unlawful strike to force the employer to sign the agreement.

Consequently, the Board declined to give effect to the working agreement, finding no valid collective bargaining relationship existed.

The grievance was dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The Board considered whether the applicant, which was not included in the Minister's designation for the employee bargaining agency, could apply under section 144(5) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the applicant is an affiliated bargaining agent and must apply under section 144(1).

The Board determined the appropriate bargaining unit and directed the matter to be listed for continuation of hearing to deal with an employee petition.

In a referral of a construction industry grievance under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, the applicant union alleged that the respondent employer failed to properly pay living allowances under the collective agreement.

During the hearing, the respondent sought to introduce extrinsic evidence, arguing that the phrase 'job site location' in the agreement contained patent and latent ambiguities.

The Board ruled that extrinsic evidence would be allowed and issued this interim decision to explain the nature of the ambiguities, noting that the word 'location' is capable of multiple meanings that must be resolved using all available evidence.

The applicants referred a grievance to the Board under section 112a of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the respondent violated a collective agreement.

The respondent challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing it was not bound by any collective agreement with the applicants.

The Board found that the respondent had signed a short-form agreement in 1973 that bound it to the provincial agreement.

While the respondent had not assigned its bargaining rights to the employer bargaining agency for all sectors, it was bound by the provincial agreement in respect of the industrial, commercial, and institutional sector by operation of the Act.

The Board ordered the respondent to cease violating the agreement in that sector.

The complainants filed a complaint alleging that the respondents breached the Labour Relations Act by concluding collective agreements without consulting them or allowing ratification.

The respondents brought a preliminary motion to strike out certain complainants, arguing they lacked the authority to commence the proceeding.

The Board held that the evidential burden to show authority rested with the complainants, as the facts were peculiarly within their knowledge, but the legal burden to prove lack of authority remained with the respondents.

The Board also dismissed the complaint under section 60 of the Act, finding that the duty of fair representation only applies to employees in a bargaining unit, not to trade unions or their representatives.

The matter was referred to the Registrar for continuation.

The complainant trade union alleged that the respondent employer committed unfair labour practices by withholding a customary annual wage increase from bargaining unit employees during the statutory freeze period, and by engaging in surface bargaining.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer violated section 70 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to implement the wage increase in accordance with its past practice.

The Board also found that the employer violated the duty to bargain in good faith under section 14, and unlawfully interfered with the union's representation rights under sections 56, 58, 59, and 61, by insisting on discriminatory monetary proposals and directly communicating with employees to discourage ratification of a tentative agreement.

The Board ordered the employer to resume bargaining, table a non-discriminatory monetary position, and pay damages for the withheld wage increase.

The complainant, an employee of the Ironworkers union, was discharged after 27 years of service.

She filed a grievance, but her bargaining agent, the OPEIU, declined to take it to arbitration.

The OPEIU relied on legal advice indicating that because the collective agreement had expired three years prior, an arbitrator would have no jurisdiction to hear the grievance.

The complainant alleged that the OPEIU breached its duty of fair representation and its duty to bargain in good faith.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding no evidence of bad faith, discrimination, or arbitrary conduct, and concluding that the union acted reasonably in relying on correct legal advice.

The applicant union applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union under section 52 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the applicant lacked status because it did not represent the employees in the bargaining unit.

The applicant relied on two recognition documents, arguing there was a latent ambiguity that would allow extrinsic evidence to show the agreements covered the work in question (refurbishing concrete columns on the Gardner Expressway).

The Board found no latent ambiguity, as the documents clearly restricted recognition to the industrial, commercial, and institutional sector, whereas the work in question fell outside that sector.

Consequently, the applicant did not represent the affected employees and lacked status to bring the application.

The application was dismissed.

During a hearing before the Ontario Labour Relations Board, the complainant union sought leave to cross-examine its own witness, alleging the witness made a prior inconsistent statement and was hostile.

The Board reviewed the distinction between an 'adverse' and 'hostile' witness under section 24 of The Evidence Act and relevant jurisprudence, notably Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company v. Hanes.

The Board held that the complainant could introduce the alleged prior inconsistent statement; if proven, this statement could then be used as a factor to persuade the Board to declare the witness hostile, thereby permitting full cross-examination.

The applicant union filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by paying incorrect benefit and training fund amounts for operating engineers on landscaping work.

The employer argued the collective agreement contained a patent ambiguity regarding the application of the 'nearest influencing representative agreement' (the Evans agreement) to the wage schedules.

The Board found a patent ambiguity existed because applying the Evans agreement classifications to the Operating Engineers Appendix wage schedules produced a meaningless result.

Relying on extrinsic evidence of past practice, the Board concluded the parties intended the Evans agreement to modify the Appendix as set out in a 1980 letter from the employer association.

The grievance was dismissed.

The applicant referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 112a of the Labour Relations Act.

The grievance spanned two provincial agreements, and the respondent union argued that the portion relating to the expired collective agreement was inarbitrable.

The Board, adopting previous jurisprudence, held that rights accruing during the life of a collective agreement are vested and not automatically extinguished by its expiry.

The Board found it had jurisdiction to deal with the grievance under both the current and expired agreements and ordered the matter to be re-listed for hearing.

The applicant union applied for certification of a tag-end unit of approximately thirteen foremen.

The respondent employer argued the foremen exercised managerial functions and should be excluded under section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board examined the duties and responsibilities of the foremen, finding that while they exercised supervisory functions, they did not have effective control and authority over the employees they supervised, as they lacked the power of effective recommendation in hiring, firing, and discipline.

The Board concluded the foremen were employees entitled to engage in collective bargaining, with the exception of one accounting/billing foreman who had the authority to hire and was thus excluded.

The complainant employer bargaining agency alleged that the respondent union violated section 134a(1) of the Labour Relations Act by failing to authorize a strike for all employees in the industrial, commercial, and institutional (ICI) sector of the construction industry, specifically by continuing to supply workers for maintenance work.

The Board examined whether the work performed under various maintenance agreements constituted construction work or maintenance work.

The Board found that while most of the work was maintenance and thus outside the ICI sector, some minor new construction work was performed in violation of the Act.

However, given the union's reasonable efforts to comply and the complainant's members' inconsistent conduct, the Board declined to issue a cease and desist order and dismissed the complaint.

The applicant, a working foreman, applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The union argued the statement of desire was involuntary because the applicant exercised supervisory functions, leading employees to perceive management involvement.

The Board found no actual management involvement and concluded that employees would likely view the applicant as acting in his own self-interest rather than on behalf of management.

The Board ordered a representation vote.

A dissenting member would have dismissed the application, finding the petition involuntary due to the applicant's perceived managerial authority.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent a unit of cement masons and construction labourers employed by the respondent.

The intervener challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing that under Bill 22, bargaining rights were vested in designated employee bargaining agencies and provincial agreements were binding.

The Board dismissed the jurisdictional challenge, distinguishing between the acquisition of bargaining rights and the organization of bargaining rights at the provincial level for collective bargaining.

Finding that the applicant had the requisite membership support and that the intervener lacked bargaining rights for the affected employees, the Board granted the application and issued a certificate.

The applicant union applied for certification and requested a pre-hearing representation vote to displace the incumbent union.

A two-way vote was held, resulting in a tie, meaning the applicant failed to secure more than fifty percent of the ballots cast.

Following the vote, the applicant sought to challenge the results, arguing that the incumbent union lacked status, that the vote should not have been held, and that some employees misunderstood the voting notices due to language barriers.

The Board dismissed the application, holding that the applicant could not repudiate the vote after having agreed to the arrangements, waived objections to its regularity, and lost.

The Board also found that the statutory notices were adequate and that language difficulties did not justify setting aside the vote.

The applicant union sought a declaration under sections 55 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that Brant Erecting and Hoisting and Provincial Steel were a single employer or that a sale of business had occurred.

The key principal of the unionized Brant Erecting, which had become insolvent, established a new non-unionized company, Provincial Steel, through his wife to carry on the same business.

The Board found that the two entities carried on associated or related businesses under common control and direction, despite not operating simultaneously.

The Board granted the section 1(4) declaration, binding Provincial Steel to the collective agreement, and found it unnecessary to decide the section 55 issue.

The applicants, employees of two related companies, applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The union had recently obtained a related employer declaration sweeping the applicants into the bargaining unit.

The union argued the Board should exercise its discretion to bar the termination application and challenged the voluntariness of the employees' petition.

The Board held it lacked authority to impose a bar analogous to a sale of business scenario and found the employees' opposition to the union was voluntary.

A representation vote was directed.